Jockey Men's Underwear Seamless Waistband Brief - 2 Pack

I have been using these briefs since the mid-nineties. It was called Mid "something" when I first tried it. It's now called the Urban Brief. Over the years the material has become thinner and thinner. It feels about half as thick as when it first came out, and lasts about that much less. I guess for some, this is a good thing, as it is less bulky. It's definitely less costly for the manufacturer. After nearly two decades of using these, it's time for me to experiment with another item. But these will definitely be the model all others will be compared to. I want to see what the deal is on those sportsman's materials that adjust to your temperature and moisture. I tried the Duluth Buck Naked and hated the feel. Regular Hanes full length briefs are a bit too big and the top band tended to get stuck above the belt line and sometimes the lower end would then ride up a bit. Uncomfortable. The Jockey was a great design. The fit is snug but not so much as to be uncomfortable. Good coverage on the buttocks and didn't ride up at all. The waist band doesn't dig into your skin, I think because it's a bit wider than most and very thin. Also, the elastic on the waist band does not loosen up with age. That is amazing and hard to beat. I like the mid-rise because everything seems to be positioned below your belt line or just on it.Update: 11/8/2015Just in case folks are still reading feedback on this discontinued item, I have a product to add to my search. I tried the ExOfficio Give-N-Go briefs. The material is similar to Duluth's Buck Naked briefs, but the fit is vastly better. It's expensive, but seems to be of high quality and I expect it to last quite a while. It's not cotton but is not uncomfortable and keeps me dry during hard physical work. The only issue I have is that my pant seat will slide on the poly material, especially when crouching down. I got used to it pretty though. I use these with Duluth's Flex Firehose cargo pants.

Comfort and appearance are important. In my fifties, I don't want to appear over-the-hill to my wife. Don't want baggy. Don't want sexy. These briefs are just right. After about four washings now I've noticed they've shrunk a bit. Otherwise, nice. I really like that the waistband feels the same as the panels. It's not a hard elastic band. More cottony.

I agree with other reviewers in respect to the difficulty in finding underwear like this anymore. I like stylish, comfortable underwear and have come to love the seamless waistband. I'm not really big on the "bikini" or the "traditional" styles, so the "low-rise" are the perfect medium in my opinion. The problem is a lot of brands do not seem to know how to cut it correctly, at least to my visual liking. I've tried other seamless brands like Hanes Comfortsoft which wore out quickly and were just not as comfortable. Plus, these are a cut probably half an inch higher on the sides and just look so much better to me.What I found most surprising was the quality of the cotton; it is incredibly soft yet stretchy. I didn't notice any brand on the package or product (ie: Pima or something) but I was personally surprised there was not 5% spandex or something due to how pliable the underwear is. Really impressive! It's been a few washings and they are still just fine.The only negatives I could come up with are the high price, but you certainly get what you pay for in this case. Also, the black Jockey tag on the front could possibly be switched up but that is just my preference. I liked the way Hanes did it by having a smaller tag which was offset to the side. Pretty superficial though and not worth docking a star in my opinion.For reference, I have a 32-33 waist line and the mediums fit very snugly and are fine for me. I would totally buy more of these in a heartbeat and plan to soon when some old pairs wear out. If you are on the fence, do yourself a favor and just try a pair. You shouldn't regret it.

At point of sale... Hanes & Fruit of the Loom undies I'm familiar with had popular 1-star reviews... Jockey had popular 5-star reviews. They tricked me into believing that Jockey was better. Familiar with the disadvantages of Hanes and Fruit of the Loom, I gave Jockey a shot.According to hubby: Seemed comfortable and better at first. But a little tighter fit (not a good thing). Really notice the undies later in the day. Hanes & Fruit of the Loom may not be as durable, but they fit more loosely (more comfy!). Plus there is a sadistic stitch line right down the front of the middle (designed by a woman or what? you've gotta be kiddin' me). And why do these come in a two-pack?

They are longer - the waist is about 2" higher than what I bought before or what is shown in the picture and they have a higher leg cutout. It seems that they wwere made at a different location and thus made differently. They are not satisfactory.

I have always been using Jockey under garment from last 6-7 years.. No change at all. because I like fitting and its material is long lasting. First time I ordered online, just because I do not have time to go market.BUT..First: This is bigger than 32-34. Its loose fit.Second: The material is very thin.-- So, I do not know I will use it or not.